I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.

But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?

That's a problem for those sentences not this one.

Two wrongs and all that

Agreed.

Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.

Maybe there's more space in female prisons, allowing for the handing out of proper sentences compared to our bustling male facilities, which you'd want to be a fairly elite level scumbag to get into?

I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.

But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?

That's a problem for those sentences not this one.

Two wrongs and all that

Agreed.

Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.

I was going to say that with regards to the woman a major factor would have been the second identity for claiming, something she shares with this fella. I would imagine in other cases people claim that they didn't realise the claims were fraudulent, they were just applying for everything they could and are a bit think and made mistakes in the declaration. Difficult to claim that with a long term systematic fraud requiring dual identities.

And comparing this to violent scum bag crimes is tempting but considering this is essentially their 'wages' it bares comparison to people who steal money from work. I'm not sure about now, but 20 years ago you were almost guaranteed a jail term if you were convicted for such a breech of trust.

That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.

That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.

A six-year-old boy, who developed an allergic reaction to his mother's lipstick, has been awarded €12,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

Barrister Maria Watson, counsel for the child, who is not being identified to avoid peer bullying, told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, that when he was only three his mother painted the first initial of his name on his forehead with her lipstick.

Ms Watson said the letter remained on the child's forehead for about two hours before his mother attempted to wash it off and was unable to do so. She found it had caused a mark and injury to her son's skin.

Counsel, who appeared with Moloney Solicitors for the boy, said that in March 2015 the child had been playing with his mother's make-up bag when she had joined the play and put the mark on his forehead.

Ms Watson said the mother had found it very difficult to remove the No 507 "Relentless Rouge" long-lasting lipstick and had cleaned the area with Silcocks base cleaner. Over the following 48 hours the area had become red, swollen and blistered.

She told the court that the blistering rash persisted for about a week but although this had settled it had left a well-defined area of discolouration corresponding with the location of the lipstick.

Ms Watson said the child's mother had brought her son to a consultant dermatologist at the Blackrock Clinic who had advised her that the area of erythema on the forehead would gradually improve. A final review in July 2017 revealed no sign of the mark.

The boy, through his mother, had sued L'Oreal (UK) Limited, which has its registered office at Hammersmith Road, London, and which entered a full defence to the claim.

L'Oreal stated the product had not been defective, was of merchantable quality and was fit for intended purpose, which was for use as a lipstick.

Ms Watson told the court that L'Oreal had claimed it was not negligent or guilty of breach of duty and the boy's mother had not used the product for the purpose for which it had been sold or intended. In its defence L'Oreal had claimed the injuries had been caused by an acute allergic reaction, which was not reasonably foreseeable from the defendant's perspective.

She said a settlement offer of €12,000 had been offered to the boy and she was recommending that the court approve and rule it as appropriate.

Judge Groarke, approving the settlement, said a medical report had related the lipstick to the boy's injury.

A garda sergeant, who had to move into the spare room at home because of his snoring, has been awarded damages in the High Court for a head-butt injury to his nose.

Sergeant Noel McSweeney, who suffered the injury while on duty, told a garda compensation hearing that his snoring affected his wife more than it did him and he had to move into the spare room “on a couple of occasions.”

Barrister Ellen Gleeson told Mr Justice Michael Twomey that Sergeant McSweeney, of Enniscorthy Garda Station had been engaged in a search for a missing woman in May 2012 when the incident occurred.

McSweeney told Ms Gleeson, who appeared for him with solicitor Ernest Cantillon, that the woman had been found extremely intoxicated and aggressive in a car in which there had been drugs and she had been taken into custody.

“She jumped back and threw her head backwards, hitting me in the nose and upper teeth,” Sergeant McSweeney said.

He said he had fractures to four of his upper front teeth and the line of his nose had been knocked slightly off. He suffered a deviated septum which had resulted in a restriction of the airflow through his nose.

“The appearance of my nose wasn’t upsetting to me so I decided not to have surgery correcting it. Perhaps if I was a model it would be different,” he said.

Sergeant McSweeney said he had been reviewed six months after the incident and had told his doctor about his snoring problem. “I wasn’t aware of it but I did have to sleep in the spare room on a couple of occasions,” he said.

McSweeney told William Maher, counsel for the State, that he had only slight discomfort with the airflow in his nose. He had decided against surgery after having been told that surgery would be required only for cosmetic reasons.

Judge Twomey, who has been appointed to deal with the Garda Compensation List and had been hearing such cases for the first time Monday, said the Book of Quantum suggested damages of €7,500 for minor dental damage and he would add to this €18,000 compensation for the injury to Sergeant McSweeney’s nose.

That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.

maybe she's just a lippy, nosey fúcker. she is a bird afterall

Don’t know all the details but it sounds like he did detain her unlawfully because she took his picture.

A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.

Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.

This seems entirely legit.

Quote:

Session back in mine boyz

Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.

EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :

Quote:

Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.

A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.

Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.

This seems entirely legit.

Quote:

Session back in mine boyz

Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.

EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :

Quote:

Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.

A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.

Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.

This seems entirely legit.

Quote:

Session back in mine boyz

Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.

EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :

Quote:

Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.

A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.

Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.

This seems entirely legit.

Quote:

Session back in mine boyz

Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.

EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :

Quote:

Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.

A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.

Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.

This seems entirely legit.

Quote:

Session back in mine boyz

Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.

EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :

Quote:

Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.

Not that I'm aware of. He's regarded as a competent criminal defence solicitor, and, the worst case scenario here was that the drugs were his own. The amount in question was clearly not intended for supply.

Even if you accept the drugs were his, it's still not really meritorious of a criminal sanction.

Would you want your kid getting a conviction if caught with a 20 bag of weed? Or a bump of coke?

Not that I'm aware of. He's regarded as a competent criminal defence solicitor, and, the worst case scenario here was that the drugs were his own. The amount in question was clearly not intended for supply.

Even if you accept the drugs were his, it's still not really meritorious of a criminal sanction.

Would you want your kid getting a conviction if caught with a 20 bag of weed? Or a bump of coke?

Not that I'm aware of. He's regarded as a competent criminal defence solicitor, and, the worst case scenario here was that the drugs were his own. The amount in question was clearly not intended for supply.

Even if you accept the drugs were his, it's still not really meritorious of a criminal sanction.

Would you want your kid getting a conviction if caught with a 20 bag of weed? Or a bump of coke?

Not that I'm aware of. He's regarded as a competent criminal defence solicitor, and, the worst case scenario here was that the drugs were his own. The amount in question was clearly not intended for supply.

Even if you accept the drugs were his, it's still not really meritorious of a criminal sanction.

Would you want your kid getting a conviction if caught with a 20 bag of weed? Or a bump of coke?